Poker Machine Princes Dealt Another Winning Hand

IF YOU want to know why NSW clubs and pubs are so fond of the Iemma Government, have a look at the inquiry under way into the law that regulates their poker machine business.

That inquiry is into the Gaming Machines Act of 2001, the law passed by the NSW Parliament in a belated attempt to put a brake on the never-ending growth of poker machine numbers and provide a hint of protection for those people who can't stop pouring their pay into the slots.

It began this year and submissions closed in July. Sixty-five of them were received by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. None of them is public thanks. The reason for that is due to this absurd line in the discussion paper inviting submissions: "All submissions will be held in confidence unless specific permission to release a submission is given by the person or body making the submission.''

So here we have an inquiry likely to lead to the biggest shake-up of poker machine laws for a decade or more and the submissions are all secret.

Why was that clause included? The Minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing, Graham West, immediately ducked for cover when that question was asked of his office. This, he said, was a matter for his department.

A spokesman for the department, Mark Nolan, took some time to find an explanation why confidentiality was offered when there is such strong public interest in debating the arguments. "It was standard procedure for this type of review,'' he said.

By offering to keep all submissions secret "a thorough review could take place'' and parties could make "full and frank submissions''. What tosh.

He said some submissions, where authors agree, may be posted on the internet in coming weeks. But not the only two that really count. They're the big ones: the submissions from the operators of the machines themselves.

Clubs NSW and the NSW branch of the Australian Hotels Association have deemed their submissions will not be released.

Here are the reasons that the Clubs NSW spokesman, Jeremy Bath, offered for keeping their submission secret.

'We were given the opportunity to keep it confidential ... It's not about not wanting to share, the opportunity was there.'' Mr Bath said Clubs NSW had nothing to hide, but he made it clear Clubs NSW does not believe there should be a public debate about any aspect of the law, whether it's increasing the number of machines, extending their hours of operation or whacking them in shopping centres.

"I think what the community need to see is what the Government decision is.''
And if Graham West had said all submissions would be made public, would NSW Clubs have still lodged their submission?
``Of course we would,'' he said.

The NSW Australian Hotels Association's spokeswoman had a similar line.
"It's our rsponsibility to protect our members and that's why our submission is strictly confidential," she said.

The big issue for the pubs is whether they can increase the cap which pegs the numbers of pokies in each hotel at 30. Everyone in the industry reckons pubs want that cap increased by 10, but this is a highly contentious issue. The easiest way for them to avoid a bruising public debate was always to keep their true position, and their arguments, secret which is why they're so chuffed with this secret inquiry.

No one in the Government has offered a serious argument for keeping submissions confidential.

The caps on poker machine numbers are only part of it. It also will decide whether the regulations should be simplified to make it easier for operators, whether the laws need changing to allow for further development of the industry and whether the rules on responsible conduct in relation to gambling should be changed.

These are big issues involving big money and serious consequences for the community. It's hard to think of an inquiry where there is such public interest in knowing what each player is lobbying for.

If Graham West had a hint of spine, he would ensure all submissions were made public. And he would do so now before his department recommends changes to the law, not after.

Posted
by Matthew MooreOctober 4, 2007 12:05 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

I read somewhere a Tobacco executive
said that cigarettes are for the Poor, the Stupid, the Blacks, and Women. In other words, these people
are rubbish, who cares what happens
to them. This is exactly what the Iemma government (and the Liberal
Opposition who are beholden to those
with money) is saying to our Poor,
low IQ (4 corners report showed
young males spending their wages
on poker machines), and Women, is
"We don't give a flying frig about
you, spend your wages on the pokies
we need the revenue, spend, spend,
spend, spend..." They are addicted
to pokie revenue, and they couldn't
give a rat's arse who they are
damaging to get it...

Posted by: davo on October 4, 2007 12:58 AM

If we as citizens are meant to be transparent in our dealing andopen to scrutiny& accountability. Then too the government and business lobby that are in the
poker-machine/gambling business. After all the implications of that business after all of us directly or indirectly..

Posted by: barryrutherford on October 4, 2007 5:27 AM

ANY venue that relies on the pokies to stay in business should close the doors immediately.Pokies should be a avenue for extra revenue NOT the only viable revenue,if a business cant survive on its own thats just tough

Posted by: hoova on October 4, 2007 8:37 AM

These guys are slippery customers who wish to shroud the business of government, especially when it comes to pokies and revenue. And Graham West, well he learnt from the best. He was secretary to Michael Costa and as anyone who has ever tried using FOI with NSW Treasury knows it's an impossible task to get anything meaningful without some type of interference.

Posted by: Mike on October 4, 2007 8:41 AM

Matthew

Nice one! Good article about the top end of town and putting the small town publicans in the same basket. Buddy, I couldn't borrow that much money to put in the 30 pokies that the government could be allowing. Sadly, there are a lot of pubs that wouldn't exist without these machines. That's at least 12 people I employ that would be finding other employment. What are you going to say to them? Give us a break! You and the Daily Telegraph should get out of Sydney a bit more! Look forward to seeing you!

Posted by: Adrian on October 4, 2007 10:35 AM

Why are we surprised? The Iemma government accepts donations from the AHA & liquor industry, and clearly puts their interests ahead of the well being of society generally. In the interviews I have seen, Minister West simply ducks for cover when ever asked reasonable questions.

Posted by: raymond on October 4, 2007 12:13 PM

Like it or not most clubs in this state rely on the revenue that these machines bring in. Without them there would be a major shortfall in funding to your lifesaving clubs, sporting facilities and hospitals that clubs donate to. I agree that all should be transparent but before you who knows everything stick your head up and crow please do your research and find out where the extra revenue from clubs go. As for the Souths proposal for no machines that club will shut its doors within 5 years without machines. I hope that I am wrong but history will prove me right.

Posted by: paul on October 4, 2007 12:40 PM

Strewth! Will you lot get off your high horses? We live in a CAPITALIST society, there ain't NO crime in making money. If citizens from lower socio-economic levels choose (there's that word! CHOICE) to gamble in pubs it is their right to do so. You Nanny Staters make me ill. Life can be pretty grim at the fringe, a lot of us are 2 paycheques from the street, having a flutter can be one way to, briefly, inject a little excitement into our drab lives. No-one is holding a gun to your heads MAKING you play pokies so piss off and find someone else to annoy.

Posted by: GreginOz on October 4, 2007 12:41 PM

Adrian,

May I suggest you and the 12 employees you employ find new jobs. Because there is something wrong when lives depend on the misery of others. Gambling like drugs is a curse. Fact.

Posted by: tim byrnes on October 4, 2007 12:42 PM

I can't believe decent people would accept amounts of over $500 in one day for the sale of entertainment in the form of watching a computer screen and hearing a bit of noise. Surely this expenditure and resources can be allocated more effectively elsewhere. I think it is absolutely of public interest to understand this debate. However, is the government interested in public interest ? We seem to be run more and more in the interests of certain wealthly companies and groups.

Posted by: Valerio on October 4, 2007 12:55 PM

Davo's comment above is spot on.

I was one of the stupid people who poured a fair bit of money into the pokies until it finally sunk in that I was pouring money down the drain and it's impossible to win playing the bloody things.

I now invest the money that I used to waste which gets a very positive return. Clubs and publicans will never get another cent of my money through the machines!

Maybe, just maybe, if the Government is serious they could limit the maximum bet to 10c a pull. If you want higher stakes, go to the casino. That'd keep those people who play the machines for amusement going.

Posted by: David on October 4, 2007 12:59 PM

The government has something to hide.

Commercial-in-confidence = public rip-off.

Why do we not have the right to know how public money is spent, and what dealings the government has with companies prop them up with tax boosters for their badly managed public purses, and with donations for their parties?

Morris and Co., you are hiding something. If your actions and policies cannot stand up to public scrutiny then perhaps you should be thinking twice about what you're doing rather than covering it up.

You were elected back into office despite much doubt that Labor would fix the problems they've neglected for so long, thanks in no small small part to the fact that you didn't wear speedos during your campaign.

The next election will be based largely on what you've done for NSW in your time at the wheel.

I suggest you start with transparency, if that fits with your post-office career aspirations... at an investment bank? A big developer? Or perhaps at Aristocrat?

Posted by: Tamhas Buchan on October 4, 2007 1:37 PM

Nice one, everyone know that Pokies create suffer, family breakdown, kids have no basics food on the table because their folks just pumped in the whole this week paid packaged starting with $10 dollar fun. Federal and Local Government have no dignity left, especially NSW Labor government, they just want pokies tax money, and keep their blind eyes on the social impact causing by pokies. The problems are the people who have their lives hanging on the thread because of Pokies have no saying, because they cant afford it.
Australia is capital gambling country on this planet, we have highest gambling per head compare to any other country on this planet, scratchies, loto, oz lotto, super ball, horse, dog, casino, pokies, keno etc .. all these traps are waiting for their next victims to swallow and bury them to hell, condemn them to eternity suffering.

Posted by: Fair Dinkum - Hell Hole on October 4, 2007 2:00 PM

Pokies should only belong in casinos, not pubs. Pokies have ruined the relax atmosphere pubs once had. The jingle jangle of coins and those electronic noises make me feel ill. The government should put an immediate cap on all pokie machine numbers.

Posted by: David Johnson on October 4, 2007 2:19 PM

Should a business / club that can only remain open if it has poker machines actually remain open? Could it be that these businesses have removed the other revenue opportunities from the business in order to capitalise on the massive profit spinners - pokies.
Gone into a major club lately? They are 100% revolved around gambling and the other services such as food and bar are only their to satisfy the gamblers. The not so funny ironey is that they proport to be there for the community.

Posted by: Cynic on October 4, 2007 2:37 PM

whats the fuss ... if someone wants to waste all their money on poker machines its their fault. Enough with the nanny state already!

Posted by: Dale on October 4, 2007 2:56 PM

You get what you vote for and plenty of those pokie players along with many others have voted this unconscionable government back in.

Posted by: Mal on October 4, 2007 3:05 PM

Mark Nolan (Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing) is almost right when he claims that confidentiality (or anonymity) is offered to people making submissions to government enquiries. I’ve availed myself of such an offer before in submissions I have made to government enquiries and departmental hearings. The big difference this time is that confidentiality and / or anonymity are not “available on request” as is normally the case - publication of submissions is available ONLY when specifically requested.

It is a subtle difference in operating procedure, but an important one. As anyone who has read the submission to IPART will know, people and organizations making submissions to gambling legislation reviews would have assumed “standard procedure” would apply – namely, that their submissions would be made public unless otherwise requested.

Clearly, the NSW Clubs Association and the Australian Hotels Association do not want the public to find out WHY the majority of submissions request significant changes be made to the Gaming Machines Act. The majority of submissions will include compelling reasons why there should be shorter operating hours, the introduction of precommitment systems and the introduction of standard consumer rights and protections available to consumers of all other products and services available throughout NSW.

Anyone who from any socioeconomic group who buys a car knowing it has no brakes can be accused of stupidity or of choosing unwisely. If they’re told by the seller of the car that it is safe or that it has brakes when the seller knopws otherwise, then I’m not stupid or choosing unwisely. I’m being ripped off and I’m entitled to compensation for the harms my purchase has caused me. To get compensation, I must have proof of purchase and that is not available to people who purchase a bet on a poker machine.

Sue Pinkerton
Problem Gambling Research Consultant.

Posted by: Sue Pinkerton on October 4, 2007 4:25 PM

I honestly believe that gambling is our worst social ill, just ahead of alcohol, which is just ahead of illicit drugs. Having lived near the casino for 3 years when I was 16-19, I witnessed some of the tragedies of people losing their homes, fearing for their return home to an angry spouse and a taxi driver who asked anyone in sight whether they needed to go to Queensland. I told him to take me to Central, he told me he needed to leave Sydney cause he lost everything plus his earnings for the day. I have done my fair share of drugs, some would say I was unfair to others, have drowned myself in the bottle, only to be resuscitated by a schooner, but will never understand the "thrill" of a pokie machine. I can understand poker, blackjack and some card games to an extent, that being they require some thought or skill, but hitting a button and hoping is damn near moronic. But it is a massive industry and people keep feeding it. What is the answer? In my view, let them empty their pay packet, funnel the mortgage and squander the food money. Revenue raised, however, must not treat the symptoms, sorry G-line, for they hardly work, if at all. Schools must teach children not only of the odds of winning, but of the cost to the community of an industry designed to take your money. Maybe the next generation won't be influenced by all those flashing lights if they see the reason why little Johnny no longer has a house, or why Mary wears the same uniform as she did three years ago. The same sympathy is never applied to drug addicts, though they stem from the same social misfortunes.

Posted by: Tha Mazire on October 4, 2007 4:35 PM

If you are a Labour voter and you are surpirsed at this shroud of secrecy, then hang your head!

The Iemma Govt is just carrying on the "good" work of the predecessor, in the same underhanded way.